Oblomov Boblomov wrote:Yeah, but maybe not just get rid of them, kill them instead, save everyone else some time.

You should put your ideas forward as clearly businesses around the world implementing this strategy based on years of analysis are missing something. Let me know how it goes.

I really don't understand why you are so defensive of the Bradford Factor. It genuinely is a gooseberry fool system, I'd love to see your evidence of businesses around the world using it based on years of analysis.

Sorry but I'm not wasting my time on this. I can't argue with you when you turn my points into exaggerated bullshit like getting rid of people with recurring illnesses after six days of sickness.

This policy isn't just to flush out skivers, it's also to provide support to or ultimately get rid of people who genuinely are too sick to be economically viable to the organisation. Not a nice idea, obviously, but a realistic one.

6 single day absences would result in somebody being well over the standard Bradford Factor (my company actually sets the bar more leniently than most), the suggestion of getting rid of people was yours, not mine.

So yeah let's not make up things or exaggerate things people didn't say eh? Things like killing them (quote above) or that people are planning sickness months in advance (quote below).

That suggests further down the year you're planning to become sick but then go into work anyway, because hey at least you had two extra days of fake sickness absence a few months ago. Huh?

I think I'm with MOggy on this, I don't know much about the system but from the sounds of it, it is a way of almost automating the sick leave process making it hugely impersonal and generic. Normally I'm all for automation etc. but in this case, it seems to be a way of stopping the manager needing to actually manage and know their staff and remove the need for them to be able to "read people" to know if they are lying and trying the play the system.It seems to me that it is punishing everyone because some people are tossers and the companies managers are not able to do their job well enough to find out that people are taking the piss and taking appropriate action.

Errkal wrote:I think I'm with MOggy on this, I don't know much about the system but from the sounds of it, it is a way of almost automating the sick leave process making it hugely impersonal and generic. Normally I'm all for automation etc. but in this case, it seems to be a way of stopping the manager needing to actually manage and know their staff and remove the need for them to be able to "read people" to know if they are lying and trying the play the system.It seems to me that it is punishing everyone because some people are tossers and the companies managers are not able to do their job well enough to find out that people are taking the piss and taking appropriate action.

In any sort of business that is very dangerous. What if you "read people" differently from a different manager? (either in the group, or an employees previous manager?)

Keeping it clinical, impersonal and objective is not necessarily best for individuals - but it's normally the clearest and safest way for multiple reporting lines to operate - and for if/when you have to start displincary due to levels/frequency of sickness etc (Which I've had to do).

You need a clear cut and "not open to interpretation" policy - otherwise it devolves into he said/he said or "whataboutery". They have "taken the appropriate action".

I'm keeping an eye on sick days atm (I'll need them soon). I asked HR for a print out of my sick days in last 12 months (we get 20 before SSP) to plan income hit. Much lower than expected = they missed off an occasion when I got the plops from a restaurant.

There seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding here in that you (Moggy and Errkal) believe the formula is adhered to as some sort of robotic arbiter rather than used as a foundation to inform human decision-making.

I genuinely thought you were just being a bellend suggesting that I think people with 6 days of absence should be got rid of. I didn't think for a second that was your actual understanding of what I said, because to me it was so obviously not.

I've just re-read what I said and I did mention economic viability. If you still read into this that I meant 6 days across an entire year then I have to say that's your fault for seriously poor judgment and not mine for lack of clarity.

But still, if you weren't just being an arse then I apologise for interpreting it as that.

I have no idea why you love the Bradford Factor so much, but you're obviously never going to listen to any reasons why people might think it's crap. Fair enough, you can think it's great, I can think it's gooseberry fool and we can stop boring everyone else about it.

Oblomov Boblomov wrote:If you honestly think I meant that six days off over an entire year means an employee is economically unviable then yes, you're stupid. That's not my fault.

We don't even use the thing at my place.

"No idea why you love it so much."

Yeah okay, I guess I should just marry it, right?

I had a moan about a gooseberry fool system and you've spent the last day defending it. If you don't love it, then your definitely have a crush on it.

The 6 days was an example of an employee breaking the maximum score. Your argument was that the score was there so employers could get rid of the economically unviable employees that break the score. Did I think you literally meant 6 days? No. Was it an example of how your idea could be taken to the extremes? Yes. Is this boring? Oh strawberry float me yes.

That system does sound stupid to be fair, and Moggy is right that it would encourage people to take more than one day off at a time if it won't result in their 'score' increasing. Surely companies should be looking for patterns of sickness if anything other than total number of days off?

Something that I find irritating about sickness at work is back to work interviews. I've been ill twice in the 2.5 years I've been with my current company, and both times have had these weird conversations where your line manager asks you what was wrong, how you're feeling now etc. Just seems like a complete waste of time unless you've been off for a week or longer. Not sure if these are normal for every day of sickness or if it's just because I don't usually have days off.